Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr. Bhushan Lal Dhar vs The Secretary To Govt. Of India, ... on 6 May, 2021
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Amit Bansal
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1436/2021
DR. BHUSHAN LAL DHAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma,
Advocate.
versus
THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 06.05.2021 [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] C.M. No. 4095/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1436/2021
3. The petition impugns the order dated 23rd May, 2019 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA No.4493/2015 preferred by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner joined the Forest Research Institute & Colleges as a Group A Scientist. The said Institute was subsequently converted to Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) and yet subsequently, in the year 1991, converted into an autonomous body. The petitioner, on 5th September, 1995, was granted two additional increments, for the reason of W.P.(C) 1436/2021 Page 1 of 4 being initially a Government Officer and continuing in employment. The petitioner retired on 31st May, 2000, when his pension was fixed and since, has been receiving pension.
5. The petitioner, 15 years after his retirement, in the year 2015, filed the OA aforesaid, seeking revision of his pension, by including the two increments aforesaid granted on 5th September, 1995 to his salary.
6. CAT, vide the impugned order has dismissed the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, reasoning that (i) one V.K. Jain, similarly situated as the petitioner and who retired from the same Institute, had also claimed the same relief as claimed by the petitioner, by filing OA No. 1552/2010, which was dismissed and WP(C) No.1122/2012 preferred whereagainst was also dismissed on 27th February, 2012 and SLP(C) No.18287/2012 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 20th August, 2014; (ii) it was only after the similar claim of V.K. Jain aforesaid had failed, that the petitioner made the same claim by filing the OA aforesaid in the year 2015; (iii) the claim of the petitioner was, that the Supreme Court, vide order dated 27th November, 2013 in Civil Appeal Nos.10640-46/2013 titled K.C. Bajaj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. had issued directions for re-calculation of pension payable to doctors, by adding the element of Non Practicing Allowance and on the same reasoning, the two increments granted to the petitioner on 5 th September, 1995, were also entitled to be added to his pay for the purpose of computation of pension; (iv) however since claim similar to that of the petitioner, made by V.K. Jain aforesaid, had been dismissed, the claim of the petitioner was also required to be dismissed; and, (v) as far as reference to K.C. Bajaj supra was concerned, Non Practicing Allowance could not be compared with the additional increments granted to the petitioner; the W.P.(C) 1436/2021 Page 2 of 4 context and reasoning for grant of Non Practicing Allowance and the additional increments was entirely different.
7. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, that the cause of action for the OA accrued to the petitioner on acceptance of the report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, in or about the year 2006 and in pursuance whereto the two increments aforesaid were required to be included in the pay, for the purposes of fixation of pension.
8. Dehors the merits of the case, we have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether not the claim of the petitioner made for the first time in the year 2015, when cause of action therefor is claimed to have accrued in 2006, was belated and liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
9. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the same would, at best, disentitle the petitioner to arrears but not to future enhancement in pension.
10. We are unable to agree. Supreme Court, in Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Vs. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan AIR 1959 SC 798, discussed "continuing wrongs" and "recurring/successive wrongs" and held that a "continuing wrong" refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury; on the contrary, "recurring/successive wrongs" are those which occur periodically, each giving rise to a distinct and separate cause of action. It was further held, that it is necessary to draw a distinction between the injury caused by the wrongful act and what may be described as the effect of the said injury. In Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India (2007) 9SCC 274, it was held that though in the case of pension, the cause of action continues from month to month but that cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. To the same effect, is Union of India Vs. Tarsen Singh (2008) 8SCC 648. The present claim does not fall in the category of recurring W.P.(C) 1436/2021 Page 3 of 4 causes of action.
11. We have next asked the counsel for the petitioner, to show to us the judgment of dismissal of petition preferred by V.K. Jain aforesaid.
12. The counsel for the petitioner states that he has not placed the same also on record.
13. This practice of not placing for consideration of the Court, the entire record of CAT and only placing documents favourable to oneself, is but to be deprecated.
14. The same is the position with respect to K.C. Bajaj supra also.
15. The petitioner is granted an opportunity to place all the documents forming part of the record as well as the aforesaid or any other judgments sought to be relied upon, within one week hereof.
16. List on 18th May, 2021.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AMIT BANSAL, J MAY 06, 2021 Ak..
W.P.(C) 1436/2021 Page 4 of 4